Purpose The aim of the study is to evaluate our group of paediatric patients with Monteggia lesion and its equivalents and to compare the characteristics of basic types of these lesions concerning therapeutic approach and results of the treatment. Methods Retrospective study of 111 children treated in the Department of Pediatric and Trauma Surgery of the Thomayer Hospital in Prague between 2001 and 2013 (13 years). When evaluating the outcome of the therapy, Bruce’s criteria modified by Letts that assesses range of movement, pain and deformity of the elbow joint were applied. Regarding the therapeutic approach, four groups were compared: nonoperative treatment, reduction and casting, closed reduction and internal fixation (CRIF) and opened reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Results were compared between three groups of patients (Monteggia lesions, displaced equivalents and non-displaced equivalents) using Fisher´s exact test with α set to 0.05. Results In all, 46 patients were treated for (true) Monteggia lesion, 27 for non-displaced Monteggia equivalent and 38 for displaced equivalent. There is a statistically significant difference in therapeutic approach between all three groups of patients. There is no significant difference in outcome between Monteggia lesions and both types of Monteggia equivalents, but there is a statistically significant difference between displaced and non-displaced equivalents. Conclusion There are only two lesions that meet the criteria of Monteggia – (true) Monteggia lesion and displaced Monteggia equivalent. The non-displaced equivalent does not meet the criteria of Monteggia and, therefore, should not be termed a Monteggia equivalent. Level of Evidence Level III – Retrospective comparative study

The goal of the study was to perform a detailed anatomical description of the retrocalcaneal bursa (RB). Its morphological arrangement was studied on 10 fresh and 30 embalmed lower extremities by microdissection and light microscopy. The RB was present constantly and in all the cases contained 1-2 cm long synovial fold, beginning on the upper wall of RB and distally interposed between the anterior surface of the Achilles tendon and the posterior surface of the calcaneal tuberosity. The volume of RB was 1-1.5 ml. The histological analysis confirmed that the inner surface of the superior and posterior wall of RB have been covered by unilayered synovial membrane, projecting into synovial villi of different shapes and sizes. In the ceiling of RB, delicate fascicle of skeletal muscle fibers was discovered, radiating distally into the regularly present synovial fold. The whole bottom of RB has been covered by 200-500 microm layer of fibrous cartilage into which the calcaneal tendon attached. The cartilagineous layer continued anteroproximally to cover the whole bursal surface of the calcaneal tuberosity, where the thickness of the cortical bone was reduced on mere 50 microm. The obtained results can be used in the improvement of the differential diagnostics and therapy of diagnostics and therapy of the retrocalcaneal bursitis as well as of other kinds of achillar enthesopathies and heel pain.

No abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study is to evaluate the use of ultrasound imaging in diagnostics of Monteggia lesion in children where conventional radiographs and the use of the radiocapitellar line fail to provide an accurate diagnosis. Methods: Prospective diagnostic study of 70 patients treated between May 2018 and July 2021 in a pediatric level 1 trauma center. In 20 patients with the confirmed radiographic diagnosis of Monteggia lesion, an ultrasound of the humeroradial joint was performed to determine signs of both normal and dislocated elbow joint. In 36 patients with suspected humeroradial dislocation on plain radiographs, ultrasound imaging was performed to determine the definitive diagnosis. Overall, 14 patients with elbow joint injury other than humeroradial dislocation were excluded from the study. Results: The “double-hump sign” and the “congruency sign” were determined as normal findings on ultrasound of the humeroradial joint. These signs were applied to patients with unclear findings on radiographs. In three patients, the dislocation of the humeroradial joint was confirmed by ultrasound. In two patients, “defect in congruency sign” was seen during reduction despite normal radiographs, which required re-reduction. In 31 patients, dislocation of the humeroradial joint was refuted. In 34 out of the 36 patients, the diagnosis determined by ultrasound was confirmed in follow-up. Two patients did not attend the follow-up examination. Conclusion: Ultrasound imaging is an accessible, non-invasive, and dynamic point-of-care method that can be applied in children suffering from suspected humeroradial dislocation and/or subluxation. Level of evidence: Level III—diagnostic study.